This proposal stems from a desire to make dialogues about the boundaries of Bitcoin engineering topics more objective, particularly given the long-standing controversies surrounding full RBF.

There's an acknowledgment of the Bitcoin Core project's historical shortcomings in publicizing security-critical bugs, whether they were externally reported or identified by contributors. This practice has inadvertently contributed to a misleading perception among many users that Bitcoin Core is devoid of bugs—a belief that is both dangerous and inaccurate. The email suggests that defining a reasonable policy for handling vulnerabilities in Bitcoin Core could provide a more objective basis for evaluating whether current practices deviate from such guidelines, thereby moving beyond subjective accusations of "politics."

The email emphasizes the value of maintaining a mailing list to support extended, text-based discussions that encourage thoughtful reflection in the conduct of Bitcoin engineering debates. It argues that comments lacking new factual information or references to past experiences should be relegated to less formal platforms like Twitter, Nostr, or Reddit. These platforms do not adhere to the same rigorous standards for scientific discourse and ethical conversation as those expected in professional engineering discussions.

Furthermore, the author criticizes the incorporation of political rhetoric into technical discussions, viewing it as detrimental to focusing debates on facts and logical reasoning. Political statements tend to devolve into moral contests over who holds the moral high ground, detracting from the objective analysis of technical information. The email concludes by reflecting on Bitcoin's nature as transcending conventional notions of good and evil, suggesting a longer-term and more abstract perspective on its development and impact.